Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for Idaho by County

All Cancer Sites, 2019-2023

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Recentaapc

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
Met Healthy People Objective of 122.7?
Age-Adjusted Death Rate
deaths per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by rate descending
CI*Rank ⋔
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by CI rank descending
Average Annual Count
 sort by count descending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Idaho N/A Yes 120.3 (117.5, 123.2) N/A 1,421 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.7)
United States N/A No 126.3 (126.1, 126.6) N/A 287,034 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.2, -1.0)
Bonner County Rural Yes 106.9 (93.0, 122.7) 32 (13, 38) 46 falling falling trend -6.4 (-16.7, -2.2)
Kootenai County Urban Yes 121.3 (112.8, 130.4) 21 (9, 31) 158 falling falling trend -5.8 (-11.3, -2.1)
Boise County Urban Yes 78.5 (49.7, 122.4) 39 (14, 39) 5 stable stable trend -2.5 (-5.8, 1.3)
Lemhi County Rural Yes 110.3 (78.2, 155.7) 30 (2, 39) 9 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.7, -0.9)
Blaine County Rural Yes 84.7 (66.7, 107.0) 38 (25, 39) 16 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.3, 0.5)
Valley County Rural Yes 107.9 (78.1, 147.2) 31 (4, 39) 9 stable stable trend -2.1 (-5.6, 1.6)
Boundary County Rural No 134.4 (103.4, 173.5) 11 (1, 37) 14 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.9, 0.5)
Madison County Rural Yes 98.8 (74.4, 128.1) 37 (8, 39) 11 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.9, 0.4)
Shoshone County Rural No 127.1 (98.2, 163.3) 18 (2, 38) 14 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.4, 0.3)
Ada County Urban Yes 117.5 (112.0, 123.1) 24 (14, 32) 365 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.8)
Nez Perce County Urban No 127.9 (110.8, 147.3) 16 (3, 33) 43 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.3)
Custer County Rural No 132.0 (86.0, 204.0) 12 (1, 39) 5 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.9, 1.5)
Gem County Urban No 130.0 (104.7, 160.5) 14 (2, 36) 20 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.9, 0.3)
Teton County Rural Yes 116.6 (78.3, 167.0) 26 (1, 39) 6 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.2, 2.6)
Twin Falls County Urban Yes 121.3 (109.0, 134.7) 22 (7, 34) 73 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.6)
Elmore County Rural No 126.1 (101.6, 154.7) 19 (2, 37) 19 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.3, 0.1)
Gooding County Rural Yes 103.7 (78.0, 136.0) 35 (7, 39) 11 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.3, 1.0)
Fremont County Rural Yes 106.8 (77.3, 144.8) 33 (3, 39) 9 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.0, 1.1)
Payette County Rural No 136.3 (113.0, 163.4) 9 (2, 34) 25 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.9, -0.1)
Washington County Rural No 129.0 (99.6, 166.9) 15 (1, 37) 13 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.8, 1.0)
Latah County Rural Yes 103.2 (84.4, 125.2) 36 (11, 39) 21 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.9, 1.0)
Idaho County Rural No 142.8 (115.5, 176.2) 6 (1, 33) 21 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.7, 1.2)
Bannock County Urban No 125.0 (111.3, 139.9) 20 (6, 33) 63 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4)
Benewah County Rural No 150.6 (112.1, 200.2) 3 (1, 36) 11 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.5, 1.3)
Jefferson County Urban Yes 114.1 (90.9, 141.4) 29 (4, 39) 17 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.6, 2.0)
Minidoka County Rural No 131.3 (104.3, 163.3) 13 (1, 36) 17 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.0, 1.0)
Canyon County Urban No 127.4 (118.8, 136.4) 17 (7, 28) 170 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 0.4)
Bonneville County Urban Yes 115.7 (104.5, 127.8) 27 (11, 36) 80 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 1.0)
Owyhee County Urban No 134.6 (99.2, 179.2) 10 (1, 38) 10 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.6, 2.4)
Caribou County Rural Yes 105.6 (68.0, 158.5) 34 (2, 39) 5 stable stable trend -0.1 (-3.2, 3.3)
Cassia County Rural Yes 115.2 (91.0, 144.0) 28 (4, 39) 16 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.7, 1.7)
Bingham County Rural Yes 118.0 (99.9, 138.6) 23 (6, 37) 31 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.2, 1.5)
Lincoln County Rural No 155.7 (93.3, 243.8) 2 (1, 39) 4 stable stable trend 0.1 (-3.5, 3.8)
Adams County Rural No 142.0 (92.1, 218.3) 7 (1, 39) 6 stable stable trend 0.3 (-2.7, 4.1)
Power County Rural No 143.1 (96.3, 205.0) 5 (1, 39) 6 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.6, 4.2)
Bear Lake County Rural No 137.1 (92.0, 198.8) 8 (1, 39) 6 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.6, 3.0)
Clearwater County Rural No 175.8 (135.8, 228.6) 1 (1, 22) 15 stable stable trend 1.1 (-1.1, 3.6)
Franklin County Urban Yes 117.0 (85.5, 156.7) 25 (2, 39) 9 stable stable trend 1.3 (-0.6, 3.7)
Jerome County Urban No 149.6 (120.1, 184.1) 4 (1, 32) 18 stable stable trend 2.8 (-0.3, 13.1)
Butte County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Camas County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clark County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lewis County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Oneida County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/21/2026 9:35 am.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.

Trend
Rising when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is above 0.
Stable when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change includes 0.
Falling when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is below 0.


† Death data provided by the National Vital Statistics System public use data file. Death rates calculated by the National Cancer Institute using SEER*Stat. Death rates are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (20 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85-89, 90+).

The Healthy People 2030 goals are based on rates adjusted using different methods but the differences should be minimal.

Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI.

The US Population Data File is used with mortality data.

‡ The Average Annual Percent Change (AAPC) is based on the APCs calculated by Joinpoint. Due to data availability issues, the time period used in the calculation of the joinpoint regression model may differ for selected counties.

⋔ Results presented with the CI*Rank statistics help show the usefulness of ranks. For example, ranks for relatively rare diseases or less populated areas may be essentially meaningless because of their large variability, but ranks for more common diseases in densely populated regions can be very useful. More information about methodology can be found on the CI*Rank website.

When displaying county information, the CI*Rank for the state is not shown because it's not comparable. To see the state CI*Rank please view the statistics at the US By State level.

Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Φ Rural–urban county classifications are based on the 2023 USDA Rural–Urban Continuum Codes (except for Connecticut Counties which use 2013 codes). State-level cancer rates for rural areas are calculated using cancer cases registered exclusively in rural counties, while state-level cancer rates for urban areas are calculated using cases registered exclusively in urban counties.

* Data has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates. Counts are suppressed if fewer than 16 records were reported in a specific area-sex-race category.

If an average count of 3 is shown, the total number of cases for the time period is 16 or more which exceeds suppression threshold (but is rounded to 3).

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

Return to Top